She points out that the consultation follows requests from local residents and she comes out in favour of a CPZ for a number of reasons in relation to the area's specific parking problems. She also points out that increased revenues could benefit the borough-wide road maintenance budget:

"The more CPZs we have in the borough, the more revenue in the highways budget to sort out the appalling state of roads in this area. Boroughs such as Camden which is almost entirely CPZ, have significantly more revenue to spend on resurfacing works than Lewisham does."

well, Sue does says she isn't a car owner, she doesn't say if she lives within the proposed CPZ and her bulleted points are little more than a finger-wagging nanny telling off naughty children. "if you don't vote yes the roads will stay in a poor pot-holed state, if you don't vote yes your streets will be deluged by parking-residents of the Loampit Vale development (which I support)" etc etc

No mention of how much a CPZ will cost a resident to 'possibly' park their car outside their house though.

Hmmm

I pay £170 a month for the various privileges Lewisham Council already extend to me, why should I pay more to(possibly) park outside my house?

It's daylight robbery.

But she goes on:

"Lewisham's policy is that they only go ahead when a clear majority in the area are in favour."

Perhaps if the Council undertook a fair public consultation of the Loampit Vale development and gave all the unvarnished facts of the development they would find there was a clear majority *against* the development - then what?

This sort of thinking always annoys me. Counicl spending should ensure that the basics are covered - such as roads, pavements, rubbish collection etc etc. That a councillor can , without any shame at all, suggest that those locally with cars pay more to upkeep the roads, on top of council tax, road tax, tax on petrol, is really not acceptable.

I take it the "revenues" will be from the poor residents suddenly unfortunate enough to live near the station and now expected to cough up £XXX extra per year in fees for their car. I would only support this if it was revenue neutral i.e. the fees would just cover the cost of enforcement. My aunt and uncle live near Abbey Wood station where Bexley have a CPZ. But it only operates from 11am to 1pm and cost about £30 pa per household.

I think I prefer resident parking bays. If a scheme was introduced on my road, Revelon Rd, then I would welcome it. I'm personally fed up with zone 2 tourists taking over all the car parking spaces on my street, and i'll be happy to pay say £30-50 quid a year for it.

The key problem is that when these schemes are introduced often the council increases the fee each year way above inflation. This needs to STOP. There must be a way to limit the yearly increases to purely inflation or something similar.

I live just at the end of the proposed CPZ zone, and everyday my road is parked up with commuters.It's annoying that i sometimes have to park a street up or around the corner - but I am not in favor at the moment of introducing these zones. Mainly because I know the price will continue to increase every year and I will not be guaranteed a space outside my house.

Will the new residents of the Loampit vale fiasco have adequate parking spaces or will they all spill over onto my street thus making it as bad as it is now?

On balance I would say I'm against CPZs. I like pot-holed roads anyway, it seems to be the only way to slow down the traffic. I used to complain about the pot holes, loose gravel and general 3rd-world condition of Brookbank Road but I've stopped now as I've realised that these things are far more effective than speed bumps and 20mph zones at slowing down traffic.

I thought car tax discs were covering the cost of maintaining the roads?

Last time CPZ was proposed in the Brockley/Ladywell area the council said they had sent each house a questionaire. It transpired that when I knocked round all the houses on my road (Braxfield Road) less than 50% of people had received the questionaire. Of those who had received it only 30% had replied which gives a very disproportionate perspective of people's opinions.

I have no choice but to use my car to go to the shops because my local parade is useless and verging to obsolete.

Marisa - Tax discs/VED/Road tax does not cover the cost of roads, it all goes into the general pot of money the government uses for anything from weapons to the NHS. Many cyclists cite this as a reason they should not pay it because cyclists already pay for roads through council tax.

I am torn on CPZs. On the one hand I find it slightly ludicrous that despite all the tax we pay (both council and national), it is likely that motorists may have to pay more or roads will not be repaired but on the other hand I am all for measures which may make people reconsider owning cars in London, which as we have argued before are largely unnecessary.

Also if the council uses money raised from a CPZ to repair roads then perhaps it means that council tax revenue can be used for other purposes and also means that those who choose to own cars are paying their own way rather than the burden of road repair falling on council taxpayers as a whole.

I cycle everywhere and my lightweight bicycle probably causes statistically speaking, zero damage to road surfaces, yet if repair is paid for through council tax, I am nonetheless paying for damage caused by car drivers

'I have no choice but to use my car to go to the shops because my local parade is useless and verging to obsolete.'

When we moved to Brockley in 1986 every parade as far as I can recall had a butcher's shop, a bakery, a greengrocer's and a sub-post office. Then Tesco opened in Lewisham, Sainsbury's in New Cross and Dog Kennel Hill and almost all the little shops closed. It's indisputable that most of the little shops weren't much good, but I would say the main reason local parades now have mostly fast food outlets and convenience stores instead of selling decent fresh food is that local people don't find it convenient to support them. It's different in Blackheath where incomes are higher and there are more stay-at-home parents and affluent retired people.

"I have no choice but to use my car to go to the shops because my local parade is useless and verging to obsolete."

Whilst it's true that local parades have become more or less obsolete in terms of doing the weekly shop, probably due to the influence of supermarkets, you hardly NEED a car to go shopping.

If we all lived in some Highland hamlet many miles from the nearest town without internet food delivery I would possibly agree, but there is an enormous Tesco and and enormous Sainsbury's both within walking distance/a bus ride away. Unless you have some physicaly disability you don't NEED a car to do the weekly shop.

Yeah I can see that use roads indirectly so I certainly should pay for their upkeep to a certain extent, perhaps though it's fairer that those who wear the roads down to a greater extent - car drivers - should pay a larger proportion of repair costs through a CPZ.

Yup, been there, done that, actually if I'm using the bus to go shopping I take my 80 odd litre rucksack with me. That's much more comfortable to carry and you can get a large shopping load done at once. Otherwise I just cycle to and from the shops.

It's your choice to keep your car, do as you please, all I'm saying is you need to pay to repair damage to the roads your car does. You choose to take the comfortable option, why should I pay for it?

HH, if CPZ was covering the whole Borough then it would be fairer, at present only those in CPZ areas pay the extra for the Council's road maintenance program, but those money are also used in non-CPZ roads.

This is an issue that has cropped up twice around Telegraph Hill and each time, despite a general apathy, concerned residents stopped it. On the first occasion, in the lead-up to the introduction of the congestion charge, the Telegraph Hill Society called a public meeting in totally neutral terms but of the hundred or so people attending all but two were against the scheme - so with that mandate we did a general leafletting to urge people to vote "no" to the questionnaire. Successful in that we doubled the average response rate (it was a time when a lot of such schemes were being touted around the Borough) but since this was from 3% to 6% of households it does not say much about how engaged most people are with what happens in the community.

Points to look out for:1) The wording of the questionnaire - our first one came out saying "would you like to be consulted on a CPZ in the area" - well of course you would, whether you were for or against - but they were clearly going to take the "yes" vote as a go-ahead for the scheme. (When queried on this, apparently the person drafting the questionnaire asked colleagues if they thought it was OK and then went ahead to print thousands!)

2) There is the risk that there will be more front garden conversions to hard-standing. If you park on your own land you do not have to pay - and then "bang" there goes another space available on the street.

3) Although such schemes are stated to be to prevent commuter parking Lewisham council will not countenance the ones that Bromley (for example) has which are operative only for two hours in the middle of the day.

4) They call for a heck of a lot of ugly street furniture and white lines cluttering the street.

5) Once something is paid for people get very territorial about spaces (reports in West London about things getting to the point of tyre-slashing and the like). The present laissez-faire regime is much better for community cohesion.

6) Councils are notorious for taking payment from all who apply, irrespective of whether there are actually that many residents' parking bays available.

I witnessed an incident in Ladywell the other day that would have been sorted in a second in a CPZ.A car had parked right on the corner of Ladywell Road and Vicars Hill (on a yellow) and the 484 bus couldn't make the turning as it was in the way. Cue 10 minutes of hooting and yelling by the bus driver and, as the bus was now blocking the road, a large tailback of angry motorists. No appearance by the selfish car owner though. Eventually the police arrived and guided the bus back and forth until he could make the turn and everything returned to normal. The police left the car where it was and all was fine - presumably until the next bus arrived!In a CPZ that car would have been towed away and impounded in an instant, everybody saved a load of hassle and delay and an idiot driver taught an expensive lesson.I'm just saying...!

Well, on a yellow line and causing an obstruction it should have been towed away anyway. The police were failing in their duties. Traffic wardens enforcing CPZs don't waste time arranging for tow-aways - I believe it is the case that they get paid by results and so, quite understandably, just want to whap out the tickets.

Ladywell Something - I haven't got any kids and I can understand that if you have, a car may be more important, however someone here (Tressiliana?) said before that they raised their kids without owning a car.

I have a picture in my mind of a headscarved and determined Tressilliana walking down to the cornershop with a wheelbarrow in one hand and a fine old silver cross pram in the other - her children beautifully behaved of course, saying "mother, may I have a broken biscuit when we get to the shop?"

PS HH, don't give me the "I don't use it so why should I pay for it" line. None of my family uses local schools or the NHS. I'd love to ne assessed for tax on what we actually gain a benefit from. Defence perhaps is the main thing.

Yes, me again. My method when they were younger was to walk to Lewisham to Tesco or Sainsbury and if I was buying a lot I'd get a minicab back. Nowadays I mostly do my supermarket shopping on the internet. No way could I have carried my shopping back on the bus or on foot unless I was shopping every day, like my Mum did when I was little.

Yes anon, I can see that the "I don't use it therefore shouldn't pay for it" argument could be taken much further than a CPZ but I'm afraid I'm not going to volunteer my hard earned cash to repair damage to roads not cause directly by me. I'm not a charity.

Tamsin,Getting a car back from the pound costs a hell of a lot more than a parking ticket so they're quids in there too and very tow-away happy in CPZs in other parts of London.However, yes - the police should have had it towed anyway.It seems the council just aren't fussed about the roads - I've never even seen a traffic warden in Ladywell!

Well Councilor Sue Luxton certainly won't be getting my vote. She doesn't own a car but expects to put another tax on motorists for doing so-typical!This is just another ruse to raise revenue and councils are only too eager to install them. We pay road tax already and should the government want to put that up then they do so at their peril. This is another stealth tax which they try to push through by incentivising local residents by offering them the opportunity to park outside their own homes. This is not about traffic calming its about revenue pure and simple-if it weren't they would issue free permits to residents (how about that Sue?).Shop owners will suffer if less people park in the area for their commute-they may just drive anyway.No no no to Sue Luxton.

At M: You won't see one anywhere until there are CPZs or metres to patrol - then they are there in droves. I used to drive regularly down Lee High Road and you could see them coming in bunches out of their base (which must be up there somewhere) on their way to the Centre of Lewisham which is well CPZ-ed. Likewise around Canadian Avenue and by the hospital. A mere obstruction on a bus route is simply not on their radar - why the police should have taken a stronger line.

Nick, with respect, you've been a little selective in your quotes in order to ensure a good debate!

For those who haven't actually read the blog post Nick somewhat selectively quotes from, it basically said there is a CPZ consultation coming in Ladywell, this is in response to residents' requests, I'm veering in favour of this but I will wait until after the drop-in event to make my mind up for sure, whatever your views, it's important you return the form so we have a decisive response either way.

Ladywell's parking issues, being so close as it is to the town centre and the hospital are somewhat different to those in Brockley, where no CPZ consultation is proposed or (to my knowledge) being called for by residents. Let's wait and see what the results of the consultation say, but I suspect the residents of Algernon Rd, Marsala Rd, Ellerdale Street, Malyons Rd (and possibly a few others) will be in favour this time, as parking problems have increased in recent years.

Yes anon, I do live in the area, and got the form through my door this morning.

ladywell car owner: you can find Ladywell ward cllrs views on the proposed Loampit Vale development here. Planning apps currently have to be decided on valid planning grounds that can stand up on appeal, not public referendum, I'm afraid!

Anon @16:39: not much point in writing to Ladywell ward councillors on this - it's not us who will be making the decision - return the form when it comes through your door and have your say that way. If it's a clear vote in favour, they will proceed, less than 5% either way, it goes to Mayor & Cabinet, clear vote against - the proposals are shelved.

It certainly wasn't the intention to misrepresent your views or even to stir things up - I thought the article was relatively low-key by my standards.

I was trying to encourage people to visit your article and read it in full and I did explain that you had gone in to detail about the specific pros-and-cons of the CPZ in question. But the wider point you made about funding for highways in the area is of general interest to everyone in Lewisham (rather than those who are part of the consultation) and it is an argument I'd not heard before, so that is why I chose to highlight that particular passage.

Hope that clears it up. I should say that personally, I am very much of two minds about CPZs. I think their are potential benefits, but I do not think that they should be revenue-generating. I'd also rather more of our roads budget spent on the pavements that people walk down than the roads that cars speed down, but that's a separate issue!

Oh please please please lets have an article about how bad our pavements are - I can even forward you my 'mini audit' that I submitted to the local TH councillors outlining why I beleived the current state and process for maintaining them was verging on negligence.

I didn't even get a response other than 'we will look into this'.

Seriously, based on my experience, if I was auditing the council using the same standards applied to PLC companies I think their report would be qualified.

Whether you are for or against CPZ; its introduction will decrease the number of parking spaces available. It is a shame we have a councillor who can not avail herself of the basic facts before declaring her interest in the introduction of CPZ because there is a shortage of parking spaces!

Camden Council? I was towed away while in a legitimate parking space at the right time and was told to write in for a refund. When I called up they acknowledged culpability but had just gone bankrupt for the second time that year. So, Sue, the argument about money to spend on roads doesn't hold up; even if we don't mind you comparing Ladywell to Camden anyway.

Last time this CPZ was proposed1. 95% of residents in Ladywell opposed introduction. 2. The council said that just less than 50% opposed introduction.

Did I mention the way the consultation about CPZ went last time?I think a number of other people have explained how inaccurate the wording of these was!

Interesting - I'd say that over the past 3 years this has been one of the top 3 issues flagged up to us as councillors in the ward by residents. Clearly, those who don't have an issue with parking aren't going to proactively get in touch with us, so it is difficult to get an accurate picture from this, but I've got the impression from recent conversations with a number of residents who voted against the CPZ last time that they are now in favour, particularly in those streets closest to the town centre or the hospital.

Anyway, whatever your views, please fill in the form and return it, so we can have a decisive response on this either way. I understand that the turnout out for the last consultation (before I was elected), was v low, 12% IIRC.

Anonymous@20:42 "Whether you are for or against CPZ; its introduction will decrease the number of parking spaces available." - please explain what you mean by this.

Can anyone advise how much the cpz fee was for the other nearby wards over the last couple of years? Would like to know what kind yoy% increases have been made?

Living close to ladywell centre, parking has never really been an issue for us. It's more about the traffic congestion, bottlenecks and the local buses that regularly get blocked at the beginning of Chudleigh Road.

It's been flagged up because it's an annoyance when you can't park right outside your door. But it's hardly a problem that happens everyday all day long and worth having to now pay for.It will make little difference and add a lot of unwanted problems, like traffic wardens walking around with their attitudes.

If you are to do it, it should be free for residents. Add more pay parking spots near the centers and make your money there.

Residents can buy parking extra permits for visitors. Daily permit for £2.70 or weekly for £8. And if your relatives were visiting and couldn't find a parking space near your home then they'd be more inconvenienced then paying £8 and have the car just outside your front door, that although not guaranteed is what happens within CPZ areas.

As I said, I live in a CPZ road and I like the result, it's an effective measure to de-congest residential roads, the problem is that it's being used as a Trojan horse for extra taxation for those involved.

For many people £60 is not a little sum and probably many park their cars in their front gardens to avoid paying the fee, if the Council would not make a profit on it then it would only cost about half of what it does, a substantial difference.

I live on the western stretch of Brookbank Road (the bit BrockleyBorder aptly describes as being in "third world" condition) and I notice that this part of the road is just outside the CPZ zone.

That's great news, in that I won't have to pay £60 to park if it goes ahead. However, it's pretty obvious what will happen, given the proximity of the CPZ - visitors who don't wish to pay will park on my road.

Then I will have to go even further afield to find a space. As the leaflet from the council states "Controlled parking zones can sometimes increase parking pressure in roads close to, but not included in, the zone." Loving the use of the word "sometimes" there.

So, I'm torn on the issue. If it's not going to include my road, I'd rather it didn't go ahead at all. If it does go ahead, I'd probably want Brookbank Road (West) to be included.

My road DOES need resurfacing urgently and the council have been saying they can't do it at the moment because they haven't had funding confirmed. So maybe the extra funds from the CPZ would help...

@ladywell car owner: believe me, I don't find parking issues that interesting! That said, if residents raise concerns, I flag these up to officers. Along with housing problems and council tax payment issues, parking (and other highways issues such as road surface) is one of the issues I am most often contacted by residents about.

Tamsin makes a valid point about the risk of front gardens being paved over in areas where CPZs are introduced - the law has now changed requiring adequate drainage/permeable materials to be used if people want to do this to their front gardens (and you also have to apply to highways for a vehicle crossover), but IMHO it still looks awful and has a detrimental impact on the character of an area. However, I don't think front garden parking is an option for a number of these roads as there isn't the space - certainly not on Marsala Rd, Ellerdale St, Gillian St, but possibly on some of the others.

Over the past 5 years I have taken two petitions around Marsala Road asking residents to sign if they were in favour of a CPZ in the street. The second was last summer, and I asked Sue Luxton to help me. We spent a busy Sunday going door-to-door. We saw most people and very few refused to sign. So no more character assassination of the good Councillor, please. Name me another who has done that for ward residents.

It is NOT a fact that difficulty in parking does not happen every day all day. Here it is a huge problem all the time. Only night time and Sundays are likely to be OK. People who have residents' parking permits for other areas (even other boroughs) park here to use Ladywell and Lewisham stations, the DLR, bus station, shops and Lewisham Hospital. This is not about parking outside your own house. Often residents cannot get within half a street - or more - of their homes to unload heavy shopping. I for one am no longer physically able to carry heavy things comfortably even for short distances. But my problems are not severe enough to justify a disabled parking place.

This road is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass if one of them happens to be an inch or two wider than average. It is not possible to find a space for a van to make a delivery or a workman to leave his vehicle where he can access his materials and tools while he works. On two occasions recently police vehicles have had to block the road because they could not pull in anywhere out of the way while they dealt with their duties. God forbid if a house burnt down and people died because a fire engine could not get through. Would you like to live with the possibility of that happening?

Today a Lewisham Council bus was blocking off the end of the road while picking up a disabled passenger. The refuse and recycling collectors have to call before 7am so that they can be sure of getting along the road with.

The road is a cut-through, so vehicles often get stuck head-to-head. If there is a problem on the A20, drivers divert in both directions, then do stupid things like trying to get past the inevitable tailback by driving on the wrong side of the road, till they find themselves confronting those coming in the other direction. Result - gridlock.

We have the additional pollution of stuck cars going nowhere, as well as those which just come along to park and ride.

Our drains never get cleaned because the covers are parked on, and even when one is accessible, the constant parking means that they are all jammed in, and lengthy roadworks are necessary to remove and replace them. But the visiting drivers do not respect the notices telling them to keep clear, so the drains remain clogged.

If you don't want a CPZ, fine, but don't deny it to those of us who are at the end of our tether. And don't tell us there is no problem just because it hasn't yet reached you. Marsala Road is the closest unregulated street to the town centre. Without a CPZ, things for us will only get worse, and as it is already intolerable, "worse" is just about unimaginably terrible.

Anon@22.40: no, if Marsala Road is the only one that comes back in favour of a CPZ, I suspect officers will look at incorporating that under the existing Lewisham CPZ, rather than set up a separate Ladywell CPZ. This is what they did after the previous consultation, when only the Loampit end of Algernon Rd (plus, Bertrand, Branscombe etc) voted in favour. The area proposed isn't set in stone - if some areas want it and some don't, they'll take that into account. Where it would get tricky is if one road didn't want a CPZ and the two roads either side of it did, for example.

Ladywell car owner: no one until now has got in touch with me saying they don't want a CPZ, only those saying they do. The consultation is your chance to have your say and for your views to be fed back to the officers. Of course I can pass views on, but a far more effective way of doing things in this instance is to register your views in the formal consultation process, rather than indirectly via me. That's the point of the consultation.

Sue, please stop trying to blind people with reasoned and valid argument. It's the first thing that vanishes in any parking discussion.

@val: "Often residents cannot get within half a street - or more - of their homes to unload heavy shopping. I for one am no longer physically able to carry heavy things comfortably even for short distances."

In my opinion rather than introducing a new CPZ they should be scrapping all of the existing ones. What is that causes parking problems on Marsala road? The fact that it is the closest unregulated to the central lewisham CPZ. Once we have a CPZ in Ladywell the problem will be moved onto areas of Brockley that border Ladywell. Then you will get a CPZ in Brockley etc etc.

For pete's sake, people. Cllr L is not arguing vociferously for or against a CPZ as far as I can see; stop responding as if she is, and trying to manufacture some mood of outrage.

She mentioned that she's had people get in touch saying they want a CPZ, because it's reasonable for a ward councillor to report what contact she's had on this subject. She's not saying it's a conclusive argument in favour, or a scientifically representative sample, she's just saying what has come to her so far.

As she's said repeatedly (and incredibly patiently), the telling bit is the results of the consultation. If anyone out there thinks, when the results are published, that there is evidence of the figures being fiddled in some way, that's really serious and there should be a proper examination of it. But let's wait and see, eh? Or shall we just have a tantrum about how everything and everyone in the world is shit?

There is clear evidence that the amount of affordable housing in the proposed Loampit Vale development is being manipulated to make it seem as if there's more than there actually is, so, yes, the Council is perfectly capable of manipulating information gathered.

The level of affordable housing is very low. The Planning statement advertises 30% of the ‘habitable rooms’ would be affordable, but in fact only 146 of a total of 788 units would be for social rent (the overwhelming need in Lewisham) that is 18.5% of the total. It is therefore clear that, as with the Gateway proposal, the economics of the scheme rely heavily on a buoyant housing market. This makes the scheme exceptionally risky for the foreseeable future, but also considerably reduces any public benefit from the scheme. Moreover, the low level of affordable housing in the Gateway scheme was excused on the basis that there would be a higher proportion in the Loampit Vale development, which has not actually materialized.

Patrick, what do you propose that other road users do while the delivery van parks in the middle of the road? How do I get my pets' heavy stuff from Pets At Home? And when I was housebound post-operation, Sainsbury's made a total pig's ear both times I use them.

Well, Anonymous, I guess you don't mind if our houses all flood because our drains are blocked? Can I send you the bill? It's a service we pay for that we do not receive because of outsiders obstructing it. I can't imagine it's a situation you would like to have to put up with. Why should we?

Those of you who don't live with the problem must stop assuming we are too stupid to have thought of the "solutions" you offer. We've been there and done all that, there's only one solution left, and that's a CPZ. We've lived with it and been thinking about it for several years, so don't belittle us by assuming your kneejerk reactions are more valid or hold a truth which eludes us.

Val, I'm not against a CPZ; far from it. The more controls and restrictions on cars the better, as far as I'm concerned.

The point I was making (again!) was that it is NOT as necessary as many people seem to think to have a car in London. Re your pet supplies delivery: the shop at the corner of Ladywell Road and Lewisham High Street does free deliveries, and you're then supporting a local business rather than a major chain. Without knowing what "a total pig's ear" entails, I can't comment on that; when I use Sainsbury's home delivery, they've been generally fine.

Regarding where the delivery vans would park, fewer cars would mean there were more spaces to park; it becomes a virtuous circle.

This was not a knee-jerk response, rather a challenge to think about the fundamental assumption that a car is necessary to life.

yes, but Patrick, you did not even think that my relative could be disabled and unable to walk from the station.So having a space near my house that I don't have to fork out for every time grandma comes to visit would be nice.

Ladywell Car Owner, of course it must be my fault. But only for using simplified terms. We are talking the gullies in the gutters in the street. They are part of the street's drainage system. And when clogged they do mean that undrained rainwater during storms can threaten the houses. Some of the covers have so much earth (yes, not our rubbish, oil, etc) in them that there are plants and grass growing. Special vehicles are supposed to clean the gullies regularly (I am not privy to the timescale) but we do not get that maintenance. There are too many cars paked in the street.

Three years ago, when Algernon Road was closed, there was mayhem in Marsala Road when the work crew put signs up diverting traffic along our road. After a day or two they altered the diversions, and raised a sign saying that Marsala Road was for access only. We had no park-and-rides for several weeks. I phoned the department that dealt with the gully cleaning and told the man in charge that he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get the machines down to clear the drains, as he had promised me to in a call several years earlier when heavy rainfall had led to flooding across the pavements. (He had not kept his word to keep sending people down till they found space to clean out the drains.) He took vehicles off another job and sent them down. But now they need doing again.

You seem to want to make everything the fault of people like me who actually do something to try and get problems solved. Today I spent my 67 Mandela minutes of public service (one for every year of his public service life - did you hear about that?) delivering small leaflets to remind people to return their forms. I wrote them, I priented them, I delivered them singlehanded. What did you do for others today? Don't try to belittle me. I'm someone who gives a damn.

Oh, and by the way, as Marsala Road flooded in 1968, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for as much to be done as possible to keep our houses safe. After all, another flood here could put up YOUR insurance premiums by association.

You right of course Val, when I'm not wallowing in my own filth or taunting people who have physical deformities I'm buying bowel loosening remedies for dogs from that petshop you mentioned prior to exercising my team of staffs along Marsala Road.

Your views are certainly welcomed and appreciated by me at the very least, and I'm only hoping you can cast your net of decency and honesty over some of the other issues raised here. Issues such as litter, cars parking on pavements, urinating in public, developers carving up Lewisham, 'yummy mummies' and the proliferation of fried chicken outlets.

Anonymous, the dead parrot "joke" was in response to a comment I made in reply to being advised to shop locally, using the pet shop in Ladywell. I said that I refuse to shop there since they killed a parrot by failing to take it to the vet's when it was clearly very ill. THAT is the dead parrot and I can assure you it was no joke. But I suppose that once again, putting someone down in such a superior way is the way of too many people commenting on this thread. Sadly, ou look a bit silly when you don't make sure you are commenting on the corrct thing.

I saw the Monty Python sketch when it was first broadcast, and frankly it was never that funny, but the death of that beautiful bird in the pet shop haunts me still, many years on. I was the one who told them to take it to the vet's and where to find a bird specialist. They couldn't be bothered.

Sue Luxton has posted the results of this on her blog. A CPZ is being brought in but not to every street in the area. According to Tressillian James only 27% of households responded which just goes to show how ambivalent people are about things.

got the results through the letterbox today. They are only bringing it to a few of the streets which will now push all that traffic up to my house and make it impossible for me to park outside my house.Why didn't they just include the whole area that they first outlined?or how about they not do it at all considering the turn out was so low?

@Anonymous: probably no great consolation to you if you are against the CPZ, but it wasn't your local cllrs who made this decision, or even the Mayor (although he was the one that gave the go ahead for the consultation) - the zone the Highways team are now proposing pretty much reflects the results of the recent resident consultation.

Personally I don't have fixed views either way on this and am happy to support whatever the majority of residents want. I realise a CPZ won't please everyone, but the status quo has been seriously annoying many residents for a long while too.

Haven't been here for a while. I'm not surprised to see that some folks are upset they will no longer be able to park outside their own houses, once the streets where this is already true have a CPZ. Apparently we should all continue to suffer so that these others don't have to.

My understanding is that the turnout was one of the highest they've ever had for a parking consultation.

Over the past few weeks, there have been so many occasions when two vehicles could not pass in Marsala Road because of there being no passing places, thanks to the over-parking, that frankly the scheme cannot be put into place soon enough. When there were not vans involved, it was 4x4 vehicles. How about banning them from town streets? Would that be greener for some of you?

A 27% response rate is huge. I understand from when the matter was debated in Telegraph Hill last that the average is 3%.Hope it works, but if the problem is commuter parking is it going to be dealt with by a limited 2 hour period - like Bromley manage to do, which is at least focussed on the issue - or is LBL still insisting that this is not feasible and it has to be all day or nothing? Sue?

Just received the application for the CPZ in Chudleigh road, looks like it will start in a couple of weeks time. Price per household is £60pa per car. Something that some people were worried about, the annual increases.

Val, please lay off the 4x4s. My 4x4 is essential for my job as I work a long way from roads. I used to have a town car and a 4x4 but now realize it is greener to have just the 4x4 rather than run two cars.

There's now an 8am -7pm cpz in Honor Oak on the stretch on road where Le Querce is. You get first 30 mins free then you have to pay by phone with a card which you get charged for using. Is this what we want in Brockley?

There's now an 8am -7pm cpz in Honor Oak on the stretch on road where Le Querce is. You get first 30 mins free then you have to pay by phone with a card which you get charged for using. Is this what we want in Brockley?

Lets look at this whole thing sensibly. As soon as the residents in algernon rd asked for a cpz it was always going to affect every other rd and resident in the area through overspill thats common sense (if they cant park in algernon they will just keep going up the hill). This is now proven so please dont complain just blame the residents in algernon rd. Now when they asked ermine and embleton rd we said no. We are now having to be re consulted again because of the overspill. This too was always going to happen.This time a few residents asked for the cpz to be during the day or even in the middle of the day to stop commuters. The fact is every day I witness workers being dropped off from lewisham lorries and vans from wearside and getting into their cars outside my home and that of others, they are the reason we have problems not just ladywell station commuters they are adding to the problem.Now if we introduced a cpz during the day this would mean shorter operating hours and so we asked for smaller fees such as £50 or £60 a year rather than £120. The council says this would not be fair on existing residents who currently pay £120. Now this is where it gets very interesting. The council have just implemented a cpz in hither green and call it the west extension that starts on 31st Oct 2011 and guess what? They are only paying £60 a year for the first year and I have been told by bill at traffic thats becuase thats what the residents there were consulted on (fact).Can someone in the ladywell village improvemnet group or the ladywell society ask why then we were consulted on £120 this is as I have been told it would be UNFAIR...Bill went on to say that they would pay £120 next year so does that mean we in this area will double up next year to £240 then???